This is a joint article written by David Goodwin and Dr Claire Badger
“To say you have taught when students haven’t learnt is to say you have sold when no one has bought.”
Madeline Hunter’s line from Mastery Teaching captures why checking for understanding matters so much. Without it, we are forced to proceed on assumption rather than evidence. As Rosenshine writes in arguably his most important principle, the most effective teachers frequently check the understanding of all students, not just the confident few.
Checking for understanding is such a familiar part of teaching that it can easily seem unremarkable. Yet some approaches that appear to offer useful information can, in reality, provide a deceptive picture of what students really know. A nod, a quick “yes”, or one confident answer may suggest understanding where there is still uncertainty. The danger is that teachers move on with false confidence and, as Hunter also warned, “unlearned material … can accumulate like a snowball and eventually engulf the student in confusion and despair.”
Read on to explore why checks for understanding can fall short and three practical strategies to help make them more reliable, covering:
Three common checks that tell us too little
In Mastery Teaching, Madeline Hunter draws attention to three familiar classroom questions:
- OK?
- Everyone understand?
- Any questions?
These remain common for understandable reasons. They are quick, familiar, and easy to use in the flow of teaching. The difficulty is that, on their own, they often do not give us enough reliable information about what students have actually understood. Let’s look at why.
OK?
Few students are likely to say that they are not OK in front of the class. For many, especially teenagers, admitting confusion publicly can feel uncomfortable. As a result, this question often tells us more about students’ willingness to speak up than about the security of their understanding.
Everyone understand?
This presents a similar problem. Students who are unsure may be reluctant to say so publicly. More than that, students are not always well placed to judge their own understanding accurately. They may feel as though they understand in the moment, only to struggle when asked to work independently. For the same reason, confidence checks such as thumbs-up or thumbs-down can give a misleading picture if treated as evidence of learning.
Any questions?
This can often produce silence, but silence is not the same as understanding. Some students may not want to reveal their uncertainty in front of their peers; others may not yet realise what they do not understand. Even when questions do come, they do not always tell us much about whether the class as a whole is secure in the learning.
The good news is that there are better ways to check for understanding: approaches that give teachers clearer, more dependable information about what students know, understand and can do.
A more reliable approach to checking for understanding
More reliable checks for understanding involve asking specific questions in ways that require all students to participate and think hard about their answers. At Inner Drive, this is called maximising cognitive engagement: creating classrooms shaped by Doug Lemov’s concept of Ratio, where participation is widespread, and the thinking involved is suitably demanding.
Cold-Calling
Cold-Calling involves warmly inviting students to respond to questions rather than relying on the often overly vocal and confident few. It broadens participation by creating a classroom culture in which all students are expected to think because anyone may be asked to contribute. This is not about catching students out but about signalling that in classrooms where Cold-Calling is the norm, teachers value the thinking of all. Research suggests that when Cold-Calling is used routinely and supportively, students may be more likely to volunteer answers, and quieter or less confident students can benefit as well.
In practice, this means:
- Explaining to the class that you will be using Cold-Calling, and why.
- Using the sequence question, pause, name, so that every student has time to think before anyone is asked to respond.
- Building a supportive, collaborative classroom environment in which students feel safe to contribute.
Mini-whiteboards
Mini-whiteboards make it possible for every student to respond to more questions, more often. One study found that the frequency of student responses was 14 times higher with mini-whiteboards than with hand-raising and that assessment scores increased in classrooms where they were used. Mini-whiteboards have also been shown to increase participation and reduce off-task behaviour.
In practice, this means:
- questions are planned in advance, with answers that can be written clearly and legibly on the board
- routines are explicit, including how boards are distributed and collected, and when students are expected to show their responses
- teachers respond deliberately to the information they see, using it to adapt their next move rather than simply moving on
Hinge questions
A hinge question is a carefully designed, quick-to-answer question used to assess whether students have grasped a particular concept. It sits at a critical juncture in the lesson, where students’ responses shape what happens next: move on, clarify confusion, re-teach.
Multiple-choice questions are a particularly useful format for hinge questions because they limit the range of possible responses. When 30 students answer at the same time, this matters. Rather than trying to interpret 30 different responses, the teacher can quickly identify patterns in understanding and misunderstanding. And when the response options map onto common misconceptions, an incorrect answer gives the teacher a clearer sense of what to do next, because the likely misunderstanding has already been anticipated.
In practice, this means:
- They focus on one concept only, so that an incorrect response points clearly to what has not yet been understood or remembered
- All distractors are plausible, with each incorrect option reflecting a specific and likely misconception rather than an obviously wrong answer
- They are quick for students to answer and quick for teachers to interpret; a strong hinge question should take no more than a minute to answer and no more than around 30 seconds to respond to
Final thoughts
The goal of checking for understanding is not reassurance, but insight. Approaches that involve all students and require them to think hard give teachers a more reliable picture of learning than those that rely on silence, confidence or volunteering. And when teachers have that clearer picture, they are less likely to move on while misunderstanding remains hidden.
This blog was co-written with David Goodwin, who is also the author of What Are They Thinking? The Ultimate Guide to Checking for Understanding.
